This is a comment about the recent ruling in Canada that did it for me:
I haven't cared enough to look into this, but I'm assuming there HAS to be some kind of reason for this. Like who was pressing for this law, and how do have the actual lawmakers defended themselves?
It's like the famous headline STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5. And I bet that if you were to read the source even for this very article you'd find many inaccuracies in many of the online news reporting about it.
But still it holds some truth. So many people are talking about a "new law" in Canada. But it's not a law. Nobody was "pressing for it" and no lawmakers were involved. And how did the judges defend themselves? There is a perfectly fine document detailing everything: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do. Now what do you think, how many of the news stories link back to that document so their readers can inform themselves straight from the source?
To me it seems that more and more, online news give stories their own uninformed spin and then on social media this spin gets propagated to the point where snopes writes articles about it. Recent examples are for example:
Claim: The state of Michigan has passed a law banning oral and anal sex.
and
Claim: Canada has legalized oral sex with animals.
This isn't even a rant about the presentation of zoophilia in the media, this is a rant about the state of online journalism in general. If you don't read any online news and instead only read snopes, you are likely much better informed. How can that be? Are there really no standards left?
There's no real point I want to make, just getting this off my chest. Especially on the topics of zoophilia/bestiality the journalism seems to be in an atrocious state. But is it just the effect where you notice more problems in your "area of expertise" and most other topics are covered just as badly and you just don't notice it? In any case, widespread shoddy journalism like this certainly doesn't help zoophiles.
Pretty much all journalism has hit an all time low in North America. I'm surprised that the regressive left media doesn't support us zoophiles tho. We must really be the scum of the earth.
I think I'm going to send a letter to Justin Trudeau.
Can we not get into this topic here?
It seems like it's been dominating every possible conversation, forum, and... just about everything else. Do we really need another avenue for it? Goddang.
lol, its such a stupid thing to say though. He's supposed to be the leader of an entire country and thats what he came out with.
I agree, but I've heard about how it's a stupid thing to say on a scale comparable to the "It's over 9000!" meme.
I'm sorry, I just really don't like Justin Trudeau.
Why? ^because ^it's ^2016
If diversity is our strength, I don't think you can do better than people who are actually in relationships with other species.
Online journalism has been garbage for a while. If I may quote a mod from a technology-journalism related forum I participate in:
Pretty much the issue IMO. Good journalism is dead as soon as you enter the internet (if it was alive to begin with). Add to that that bestiality articles were identified as clickbait gold early on, and you got a killer ad-revenue combo for poor journalism awesomeness.
I came to a similiar conclusion (absolutely not zoo related) when I read a online news bit about the recent assasination of a british politician. Lots of "liveticker" nonsense that was pure sensation beating and below the bit there was a line stating "have you heard or seen anything regarding this incident contact [newssite]" - this has nothing to do with accurate information but just buying sensational reports from people to generate clicks with "exclusive" material.
Don´t blame it on the journalists, man. Without "customers" yearning for easy to read, sloganesque and badly researched articles, this kind of journalism would die out in an instant. Do I have to remind you what times we are living in? Everything has to be consumable in the most quick, most time saving and most convenient manner today; just take a look at the still increasing market for "convenient food". Peeling a potato (taking only a few minutes) seems to be so time consuming for the average customer that he´s willing to buy pre peeled ,pre boiled and vacuumated potatoes. Why should it be different with journalism? Given the choice, our average customer will of course favor articles that do not challenge any of his prejudices. The journalists only meet this demand for easily digestable "informations" as they have to obey the market in order to make money.
Still, there´s also some quality journalism out there, challenging common beliefs and viewpoints. The only issue is that it is hard to find because it is drowned in an ocean of "fast food" articles. When the internet started back in the eighties, all the early adopters were buzzed about the possibilities of the net; "knowledge will be available for anyone around the world"....nearly three decades later, many of the early adopters made up their minds and have realized that worldwide communication technologies also make it incredibly easy for anyone to spread prejudice, white and grey noise, misinformation and lies. As long as online journalists aren´t paid for quality research, but for sheer quantity, as long as sensationalism works to generate clicks, this won´t change. It´s the market mechanisms, not the journalists, and only partially the consumers to blame.
There will always be a line of people willing to read garbage. Tabloids have long proven this. What makes it particularly bad online is the lines between tabloid and "legitimate" news source blur. If anything, I blame the perview digital advertising agencies that make such online news profitable.
On the other hand, compared to online journalism relating to Africa all of this looks pretty good. I can't remember ever reading a good article about any bestiality case coming from an african online news site (at least not in english).
I just saw https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fabidjantv.net%2Flove%2Fcote-divoire-ses-filles-qui-couchent-avec-des-animaux-pour-de-largent-le-temoignage-emouvant-dune-victime%2F&edit-text= and while I don't doubt that abuse of people like this does happen, the article seems low quality as usual...